In an interview with Financial Times, O'Neill said, "Able-bodied adults should
save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for their own retirement
and, for that matter, health and medical needs." Shocking! Why, what subhuman
dare question the logical, moral, philosophical and constitutional basis for the
modern Welfare State?

"The broad idea (for the government-provided social safety net)," says Reich,
"was easily understood by the generation that experienced the depression, World
War II, the Cold War and some deep recessions. Any family could find itself

down on its luck through no fault of its own. ... Its breadwinner might lose his
(almost always 'his') job and have a hard time finding another. Or he might
become disabled or die, leaving his wife and children destitute. An elderly person
or couple might lose everything in an economic downdraft and face their twilight
years in grinding poverty. A humane society, it was assumed, would pool some of
its resources to guard against these personal misfortunes."

But the architect of the modern Welfare State, President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, in his Jan. 4, 1935, message to Congress, warned about the dangers
of government welfare dependency, "The lesson of history, confirmed by the
evidence immediately before me, shows conclusively that continued dependence
upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to
the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle
destroyer of the human spirit. ... It is in violation of the traditions of America. ...
The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief. ... We must
preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but also their
self-respect, their self-reliance and courage and determination."

The Reich mindset presumes that an "at risk" person possesses neither the means,
resources nor ability to improve. But President Abraham Lincoln, a man not
unfamiliar with bare-bones living, said, "There is not, of necessity, any such thing
as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. ... The prudent,
penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with
which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account for a while,
and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and
generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all -- gives hope to all,
and ... improvement of conditions to all."

Sister Connie Driscoll runs St. Martin de Porres House of Hope in Chicago, a
home for alcohol- and drug-addicted single mothers. In addition to providing
training on how to find a job, the house counsels ladies on the importance of
assuming responsibility for one's own behavior.

Sister Connie dismisses the need for a government-provided social safety net,
"The problem is not lack of jobs, but the inability of people to work and be
responsible with a paycheck." But shouldn't the government provide for these
"lost souls"? Not according to Sister Connie, "The work is there. I see plenty of
McDonald's 'help wanted' signs for $7.00 an hour along with a $100 signing
bonus. The problem is not lack of jobs; it is bureaucracy and lack of
accountability." Sister Connie feels private charity is well equipped to handle the
needs of the disadvantaged and those who suffer unexpected misfortune. She
reasons that the more government does -- and does inefficiently -- the more we
see an I-gave-at-the-office mentality.

(Still, according to Time magazine,
"Charitable gifts by Americans totaled $190 billion in 1999 -- equivalent to
one-third of the domestic federal budget, or 2 percent of our national income.")

Barbara Ehrenreich's book, "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in
America," echoes Reich's the-system-oppresses-people theme. She sought to
demonstrate the near impossibility of surviving on minimum wages by taking
entry-level jobs around the country. Ehrenreich describes the righteous indignation
felt by a low-income worker, "When someone works for less pay than she can
live on, when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and
conveniently, then she has made a great sacrifice for you."

But didn't we read in the Los Angeles Times of the progress of the mostly
Hispanic fast-food workers in the Los Angeles area who took entry-level jobs,
only to find themselves within a few years earning enough to purchase homes and
cars? Jose Hernandez began working at McDonald's in 1990 for $3.35 an hour.

He now earns $50,000 a year, and manages nearly 60 employees. "Look at what
I am doing and how far I've come," said Hernandez. "I have a career, a real
career, and I am supporting my family. My children can be proud of me."

So leave it to academicians like Reich to discuss "gaffes." Others have work to
do.